Ken Ham is mad at physicist Lawrence Krauss because Krauss told the truth about how we were created.

I love that last line:

“Forget Jesus; the stars died so that you could be here today!”

Besides the “blasphemy,” Ham is mad that Krauss dares to mock the Creation Museum when he’s only took a quick tour through it:

[CCO Mark Looy] actually timed Krauss’s visit. He took a whole 22 minutes to walk through the museum, most of the time asking Mark Looy questions and only occasionally glancing at some of the exhibits. Considering it would take a person nearly one and a half hours to watch the programs in the various theatres, including the Planetarium and SFX theatre, plus take 2 hours to watch all the 50-plus videos in the various exhibits, and a further two hours to read all the signage—it was obvious Krauss wasn’t the least bit interested in researching the content of the museum (as one would expect from a real scientist and well-known anti-creationist commentator), but only visited presumably to tell people he has seen the Creation Museum and thus could comment on it — what a farce!

22 minutes is more than enough. Hell, we’re in the Creation Museum… By my back-of-the-envelope calculation, 22 minutes in Creationist time is approximately 100 years in regular time.

Now, let’s be fair to Lawrence Krauss. He’s a very smart guy and I’m certain that it didn’t take him 22 minutes to recognize that the museum was a farce. I’m sure he stayed an extra 21 minutes just to be polite to his host.

Other atheists have spent hours in that “museum” and thoroughly debunked the collection of lies and misinformation in it. I’ve been there twice; the second visit only confirmed how unscientific the place is. But Ham just ignores all that.

He goes after Krauss for the following reasons:

He openly mocks and blasphemes Jesus Christ

Sadly, note the reaction of the audience

Can you imagine what would happen if Krauss dared mock Mohammed or Allah, or the Islamic religion in some way?! He would probably be fired from the university, let alone face all the other problems he would have in any backlash — yet secular universities seem to allow Christianity to be mocked and for God to be blasphemed — political correctness obviously applies to how people treat other religions, but not to how one treats Christianity.

He’s not actually mocking Jesus. He’s explaining that we came from starstuff. Jesus never died for our sins because no one can possibly die for our sins. But if you want to talk about sacrifice, we’re made from dead stars. So there you go.

The audience is laughing because they understand that.

Krauss is not going after Islam because Muslims don’t go around trying to ruin science classes in America. They’re not the biggest problem we face when it comes to science education. People like Ken Ham — fundamentalist Christians who spread lies about where we came from — are the problem.

By the way, the last line in that video is getting all the attention, but the stuff before it is really great:

Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust.

Let’s see Ken Ham explain how Krauss is wrong about all that. That would be entertaining.

“Jesus never died for our sins because no one can possibly die for our sins. But if you want to talk about sacrifice, we’re made from dead stars. So there you go.”

Where’s the “probably” on all those “blanket claims” Hemant?

If someone says there is no god you say, “Accurate? Not in the least. Atheists don’t (and shouldn’t) say, “There is no God” because it’s wrong to make such a blanket statement. (The British people knew well enough to put the word “Probably” in their bus campaign.)

I don’t think you’re being consistent. Of course Jesus didn’t die for our sins and of course there are no gods.

David D.G.

Carl Sagan never bothered with blasphemy, to my knowledge, but he gave much the same message otherwise in Cosmos (where I first encountered it) and elsewhere, and the concept continues to blow my mind. As I say in the comment beneath my profile photo on Facebook:

We are all of us made of atoms forged in the nuclear fires of long-dead stars. Is that cool or what? =^D

This simple but awesome scientific fact shows that we are not apart from the universe, but an integral part of it — because it is an integral part of us. Contemplating that is, for me, the equivalent of a truly spiritual experience.

~David D.G.

Richard Wade

Can you imagine what would happen if Krauss dared mock Mohammed or Allah, or the Islamic religion in some way?!

I’m hearing this asinine ploy more and more often from Christians whining like Rodney Dangerfield that “they don’t get no respect.” Are they beginning to envy the fear that some Islamic lunatics have caused around the world? Do these Christians think that fear and respect are the same thing? Or are they willing to take fear if they can’t get respect? Are they perhaps contemplating that maybe they should run around like rabid maniacs with machetes, chopping up anyone they find because somebody publicly challenged their beliefs?

Christians who try this tactic should be confronted on it every single time. They should be asked if they think that they should adopt the violence and mayhem that has brought Islam its bad reputation in the West.

If they say no, then they should try actually defending their beliefs instead of transparently implying that “blasphemers” are cowardly, only picking on the meek. “Oooh you meanies, picking on poor widdu me. I wish I could scare you wike de big bullies do.”

MH

Richard Wade, I find that claim by religious conservatives tiresome too. I read beliefnet and in more than one of the threads the religious conservatives seemed to imply that the violence should be used against atheists. Here’s a link to one such exchange:

That thread also contains the atheists don’t argue against the truth of Islam meme in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Hugh

Ham writes: “Krauss is considered to be one of the leading cosmologists and evolutionists in the United States.” Good grief, if he doesn’t know the difference between cosmology and biology, what business does he have running what purports to be a (tax exempt) scientific education facility?

@dude: the word “probably” was used in the bus campaign for legal reasons. In Britain the government polices advertising content and can force you to retract a statement of fact that you can’t substantiate. Although they didn’t bother doing so for the Christian bus campaign which said that non-Christians would burn in Hell, which was what prompted the atheist campaign.

Casimir

He would probably be fired from the university, let alone face all the other problems he would have in any backlash — yet secular universities seem to allow Christianity to be mocked and for God to be blasphemed…

Ken Ham is being deceptive. (I know, shocking!) He’d like you to watch that vid and assume Krauss was making those statements in a classroom of his students at the university.

What Krauss is doing is indoctrinating students (and others) in his anti-God religion of naturalism…

Of course that is not the case. The YouTube video he embeds has a link to the full talk. It was a talk Krauss gave at the 2009 Atheist Alliance International conference. His talk was sponsored by the Richard Dawkins Foundation, Dawkins himself introduced Krauss. (Aside: It’s a great video and debunks the idea that “something can’t come from nothing”.)

Anyways. Why Krauss should be fired for mocking Jesus on his own time at an atheist convention is beyond me. He wasn’t bringing his religious beliefs into the classroom, and he wasn’t doing anything improper. Ham just wants him fired because he said something Ham didn’t like.

Philbert

The appeal to jihad envy is unfortunate, but I fear it is an inevitable consequence of society giving in to terrorist threats. It can and should be mitigated by pointing out that it is a feature, and not a bug, that Christianity can be criticized openly with much less fear of violent reprisal. But I don’t know that it can be eliminated entirely in the long term.

David D.G.

Richard Wade quoted and wrote:

Can you imagine what would happen if Krauss dared mock Mohammed or Allah, or the Islamic religion in some way?!

I’m hearing this asinine ploy more and more often from Christians whining like Rodney Dangerfield that “they don’t get no respect.” Are they beginning to envy the fear that some Islamic lunatics have caused around the world? Do these Christians think that fear and respect are the same thing? Or are they willing to take fear if they can’t get respect? Are they perhaps contemplating that maybe they should run around like rabid maniacs with machetes, chopping up anyone they find because somebody publicly challenged their beliefs?

P.Z. Myers refers to this as “fatwa envy,” and his expression hits the nail on the head. That is exactly what many Christian fundamentalists are expressing (including fundamentalist Catholics as well as Protestants).

~David D.G.

http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty

Delurking for the first(?) time, here.

This simple but awesome scientific fact shows that we are not apart from the universe, but an integral part of it — because it is an integral part of us. Contemplating that is, for me, the equivalent of a truly spiritual experience.

So. We ARE all one. Now if only humanity would realize that….

dude

Hugh, The comment with the word probably is a quote from Hemant from a previous blog entry.

Eric Mattingly

I second Jeff Satterly’s comment. That lecture was the best thing I’ve seen on Youtube (well, not counting old Toots and the Maytals videos).

Rocklee

What kind of mumble jumble was that???

We came from exploding stars?

Rocklee

He wasn’t bringing his religious beliefs into the classroom, and he wasn’t doing anything improper. Ham just wants him fired because he said something Ham didn’t like.

No but he made comments that were inappropriate. Its like working in a foreign university and talking about the things you don’t like about living in that country, they will not renew your contract and would probably fire you.

Its just professional courtesy.

Vene

Oh joy, Fatwa envy, except that he wouldn’t be fired for mocking Islam (at least, as long as it is in his own time). PZ Myers is also employed by a university, he desecrated the Koran. He’s still employed.

Ken Ham, shut the fuck up.

I liked writing that. So I’ll write it again.

Ken Ham, shut the fuck up.

David D.G.

Rocklee quoted and wrote:

He wasn’t bringing his religious beliefs into the classroom, and he wasn’t doing anything improper. Ham just wants him fired because he said something Ham didn’t like.

No but he made comments that were inappropriate. Its like working in a foreign university and talking about the things you don’t like about living in that country, they will not renew your contract and would probably fire you.

Its just professional courtesy.

Krauss made comments that were “inappropriate”? In what way?

If the comments were “inappropriate” simply because they outraged a loud-voiced superstitious fringe group by belittling the group’s beliefs (even just as a rhetorical device), then I’d say that the “inappropriateness” label belongs on the other foot. Their wildly narcissistic worldview and childish outrage are what’s “inappropriate” here.

In any case, if freedom of speech on this issue were so stifled that a professor who belittled religion could be legally fired for expressing those beliefs (which, sadly, a vast majority of people in the U.S. still espouse in one way or another), then that type of “professional courtesy” sounds an awful lot to me like de facto censorship, or at least a very strong chilling effect in that direction — and P.Z. Myers would have been out of work quite some time ago. Thankfully, freedom of speech in this country usually is still valued highly and protected.

Religion (especially Christianity) has had a privileged position in discourse for far too long; therefore, approximately as one blog commenter once phrased it, any criticism of religion sounds like a shout, even if it’s actually just a whisper. People need to get used to the sound of criticism of religion before it stops sounding “inappropriate,” like a rude dinner topic. In actuality, it is no different from criticism of any other unsubstantiated claim, however popular.

~David D.G.

Philbert

What kind of mumble jumble was that???

We came from exploding stars?

To the best of our knowledge, the Big Bang produced only a few simple elements: mostly hydrogen, with traces of helium and lithium. Heavier elements, such as the carbon we are mostly made of, are produced by nuclear fusion in stars (our Sun is converting hydrogen to helium right now). When large stars explode (a supernova), they form additional heavy elements (anything heavier than iron comes from such explosions), and by blowing themselves apart they spread the carbon, oxygen, and other useful stuff around.

Our Sun is a moderately-sized star that formed out of the remnants of a larger star. Everything on the Earth, except perhaps for some fraction of the hydrogen and helium, was once contained inside the core of a star that is no more.

muggle

dude, there is no “God”

Enough with this stupid, assinine rule that we can’t out and out state that. Rather like saying we can’t say there’s no tooth fairy.

I’ve said it, I say it, and I’m gonna continue saying it. And what’s more I have the audacity to refuse to prove a negative and instead ask anyone claiming there’s a “God” or even might be one to prove their rather phenominal claim.

The fatwa envy is even stupider than saying we can’t say there is no “God”.

I loved — absolutely loved — the we are all stardust line. Beautiful.

dude

muggle, try reading my post carefully. I know there is no god. The quotes in my comment come from Hemant so that’s who you’re arguing with, not me.

Casimir

He wasn’t bringing his religious beliefs into the classroom, and he wasn’t doing anything improper. Ham just wants him fired because he said something Ham didn’t like.

No but he made comments that were inappropriate. Its like working in a foreign university and talking about the things you don’t like about living in that country, they will not renew your contract and would probably fire you.

Its just professional courtesy.

In what possible way were they inappropriate? Firing someone for making one critical statement (a joke no less), certainly doesn’t strike me as “professional courtesy”. Are you really saying that the appropriate reaction to, for example, an American professor working in England repeating a joke about English cooking is that he should be fired? (When he repeats this joke at a French cuisine lovers convention, no less?)

Think about the implications if it truly was inappropriate. It would effectively bar open atheists from holding teaching positions at universities.

flawedprefect

I thought it was an appropriate throw-away line. What consequence are the actions of one man – real or fictitious – when friggin STARS explode? That IS amazing!

The more I find about this guy, the more I like him! He puts Jesus in the best context possible: human construct. We humans are nothing next to a star; our constructs less than nothing. Right there is true humility.

Ben

To Ken Ham:

I’ll bet Lawrence Krauss doesn’t have to eat a whole egg to figure out that it’s rotten, either.

dude

muggle, try reading my post carefully. I know there is no god. The quotes in my comment come from Hemant so that’s who you’re arguing with, not me.

By the way Muggle, if I wasn’t such a noob (and in a rush) I would’ve done a better job of using quotations and there wouldn’t be any confusion. The stuff you said is all stuff I agree with emphatically.

geru

Clot of blood, piece of clay, atoms of stardust, what’s the difference?

This Fatwa Envy-phenomenon is truly ironic, don’t these Fundamentalist Christians understand that they’re equating their own religion with the most horrible human behavior in world history?

Isn’t this kinda like saying:

-What? You disagree with my political views? Well I’m sure you wouldn’t be as vigorous in defending your views if you were arguing with Hitler!

Well that’s the whole point you freaking idiot, I’m assuming here that I’m _not_ discussing with someone who represents a genocidal dictatorship, but rather with someone who’s actually prepared to _talk_ about our differences, because I actually believe that people have the _right_ to disagree with each other, as foreign as that might seem to a fundamentalist.

I do understand the impulse to react to every single unpleasant thought expressed by someone by amassing a mob and beating their skull in with the largest rock you can lift, since that approach has worked so well for the last 100,000 years at least, but I’ll take the risk of being called a “fundie leftist liberal” or whatever and say that I just don’t think this is the optimal way of settling differences in the 2010′s.

Doesn’t matter how many gods people has invented, created, faked. It will never changes the atomic structure in our bodys. What is right is right, teaching lies… is wrong. I’ll never understand why some people believe that an virgin birth is more plausible than an explosion. How many virgin births we have registered ? How many explosions do cientists have observed, studied and registered ? Dããããã

http://thinkingforfree.blogspot.com/ Eamon Knight

Geez, Ham never passes up an opportunity to whine about how meeeeaaaannnn the evilutionists are, does he?

Re, Ham’s complaint that Krauss spent only 22 minutes in his Museum of Religious Brain-Damage: It’s just a particularly pathetic form of the Courtier’s Reply. Krauss can’t fairly criticize the Creation Asylum without viewing all 50+ videos? Carefully studying the text on every placard? I was there (even ran into Hemant somewhere around Noah’s Ark ;-)), and the entry hall alone is enough to justify everything Krauss says about the place. Hell, even just reading a few random articles off the AiG website, and making the reasonable assumption that their “museum” will represent the same viewpoint, is enough.

http://mingfrommongo.livejournal.com mingfrommongo

Can you imagine what would happen if Krauss dared mock Mohammed or Allah, or the Islamic religion in some way?

He did. Allah & Jehovah are the same non-existant dude. ‘Allah’ is the Arabic word for God, used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews. Mocking the God of Abraham is an efficient way to knock all three major Western religions at once.

http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Joshua Zelinsky

dude,

All claims are inherently probabilistic. Sometimes people are explicit about that sometimes they aren’t. 1+1=2 is a probabilistic claim (there’s some tiny tiny chance that humans have repeatedly just screwed up their arithmetic). Whenever you make an arithmetic statement do you feel a need to preface it with a disclaimer about the lack of certainty?

dimetrodon

I didn’t vote on who is the most atheist.The worship of imaginary gods started around 4000 bc by astrologers.Even though most of us no longer accredits any value to astrology,many humans still cling to imaginary gods.There are no gods,so,I did not vote. have a nice day, Dimetrodon